MrApproach, you may remember I organised those "famil" trips for our ATC's to go to the USA (with full pay) and see how the system worked.
The ATC on return to Australia had to write a simple report on what appeared to be better about the US system and what appeared not as good.
The plan was to copy, where possible, what was better.
I still have copies of those reports.
All stated that there were some procedures which were better and some where we were already in front.
After I finished my term as Chairman of CAA the trips were stopped and none of the ideas were acted upon.
Any pilot here who wants to fly a jet aircraft competently will end up at some time in an overseas built multimillion dollar simulator.
This results in some pretty good standardisation of procedures for similar types of aircraft throughout the world.
ATC's are not exposed to this type of international standardisation because the simulators and training tend to be locally produced for each country.
For example US and Canadian low level en-route controllers think nothing of providing IFR procedural approach services for every non radar instrument approach in their sector- after all it is what they do 365 days of the year.
Readers of this site will know that it is quite different here- as no Australian controller is trained to provide this service though it is commonplace overseas.
The main reason for the difference is that for 40 years FS "owned" this airspace in Australia. Pilots were not even allowed to communicate directly with ATC when in this airspace so no ATC separation service could be provided.
One day we will follow the more proven and safer system used in most other countries where airline jets actually get an IFR ATC service whenever they are in IMC!
For that to happen we will have to upgrade some of our terminal airspace from G to E.